The Australian "custody sisters"

[banquetbear]

You are misrepresenting what I have said, either deliberately or otherwise.

FIRST
I have always argued, right from my very first post in this thread, that I believe what happened when the girls were dragged away from their mother was wrong. IMO, it was handled appallingly by all concerned, including the police. That is an opinion I will never change. There is never any justification for the use of violence with children. Don't much care who is to blame for the situation that this family has ended up in. The mother may well be a *********** pig, or a *********** dog or a *********** bitch or any of the other disgusting terms that some posters here have used to describe her. Perhaps she really doesn't deserve to have them. The father may well be all sweetness and light and a real angel in disguise, who only wants what's best for his kids, and perhaps he is the best choice as the custodial parent. Irrespective of ANY of all this, the use of violence with children is always wrong!!

SECOND
The argument about criminality or non criminality is a side issue that I argued PURELY to refute those who maintain that kidnapping by a stranger for ransom or for other nefarious purposes is exactly identical to abduction by a parent in a custodial dispute. They are not the same, period. I have proved conclusively that they are covered by different laws and different acts of parliament. If you can show me ONE SINGLE CASE (with proof) in any of the jurisdictions involve in this case the case where the offending parent in a parental abduction case has been charged with a criminal offence and been found guilty and been sentenced to 25 years in prison, then I will recant my position.

Nuff said.

...look: its a free world and you don't have to answer my questions. But I'll take your non-answer of my questions as acknowledgements that:

1) You did intentionally plagerize the statements you typed earlier and continue not to attribute the cite

2) That you are the source "Abduction is not a criminal offence: and that you simply hoped that noone would go through the effort to google it.

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q="...7GPEA_en&redir_esc=&ei=DIw2Ua6wMImkigfWv4CIBQ

3) My first post to you in this thread was:

...out of interest: is every reply in this thread going to ignore the substance of the post you are replying to and argue a strawman?

And with this response to me it looks like the answer is an absolute yes. Not only did you not answer my questions: you then went on a rant and now are asking people to support assertions they never ever made.

 

[kerikiwi]

Remember, I am arguing against the assertion made by kerikiwi et al, that kidnapping and parental abduction are one and the same offence

You are arguing against a straw man. I said no such thing.
All I commented on was the outcome.
of the two scenarios.
You had said that the children should stay where they wanted to stay because their wishes are paramount.
You did not say they should stay where they want to stay because the mother did something illegal but not criminal.
I asked whether in the case of a stranger abduction, the children's wishes should be paramount? I repeat: I in no way said the two were one and the same offence.
Please stop misrepresenting what I said.

 

[kerikiwi]

There is never any justification for the use of violence with children.

So back to the stranger abduction.
If some children were abducted by a stranger, and later screamed and kicked because they wanted to stay with the stranger, would you agree that they should be left with the stranger (who is now not a stranger but someone they really want to stay with)
After all, there is never any justification for the use of violence with children.
Or do you mean that sometimes violence is justified?

ETA: I use your term 'violence' though I think force is more apt, as the only violence came from the girls.

 

[smartcooky]

...look: its a free world and you don't have to answer my questions. But I'll take your non-answer of my questions as acknowledgements that:

1) You did intentionally plagerize the statements you typed earlier

2) That you are the source "Abduction is not a criminal offence: and that you simply hoped that noone would go through the effort to google it.

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q="...7GPEA_en&redir_esc=&ei=DIw2Ua6wMImkigfWv4CIBQ

3) My first post to you in this thread was:



And with this response to me it looks like the answer is an absolute yes. Not only did you not answer my questions: you then went on a rant and now are asking people to support assertions they never ever made.

1. No, but I did paraphrase some parts for clarity. I felt there was no need to site the source since I was quoting the law, and citing relevant statutes and sections (28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A [Supp. 1993]) and (48 Stat. 781 [codified at 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1201 et seq.]).

2. I have already answered that question. "Depending on the laws of the state and country in which the child abduction occurs, the abduction may or may not constitute a criminal offense"
https://www.justia.com/family/child-custody/docs/what-is-parental-child-abduction.html

If you are looking for an easy "sound byte" answer, then you are going to be disappointed, because there isn't one. Its too complex an issue for that.

3. Perhaps you can show me where I have asked any poster to "support my assertions" All I have done is put my case. Its up to them if they support it or not. SWSW SW!

NOTE: Discussion on this is now closed from my end. I have made my position clear on the issue of whether kidnapping and parental abduction are one and the same offence. In reality whether parental abduction is a criminal offence in some jurisdictions and not in others is really irrelevant, what matters is how they are treated. There is no case I can find in any jurisdiction in which a parental abductor has been given the same length or severity of sentence that a kidnapper who took a child for ransom or sex would have been given. I would be more than willing to recant if you can find one. Oh, and good luck with that!

Parental abduction is NOT the same as kidnapping, and I proved it for a fact in several posts ending in #799

I have nothing further to add.

 

[smartcooky]

So back to the stranger abduction.
If some children were abducted by a stranger, and later screamed and kicked because they wanted to stay with the stranger, would you agree that they should be left with the stranger (who is now not a stranger but someone they really want to stay with)
After all, there is never any justification for the use of violence with children.
Or do you mean that sometimes violence is justified?

ETA: I use your term 'violence' though I think force is more apt, as the only violence came from the girls.

I have already answered this question, do try to keep up

Use violence on the abductor, NOT the children. I would expect the police to take out your stranger, not try to drag the kids away

I have proved conclusively that parental abduction is not the same as kidnapping (which for some reason you insist on calling your made up term "stranger abduction")

There is no point in repeating the same arguments if the readers can't (or won't) understand them. As I said I have nothing further to add on that issue. End of.

 

[kerikiwi]

I have proved conclusively that parental abduction is not the same as kidnapping (which for some reason you insist on calling your made up term "stranger abduction")

There is no point in repeating the same arguments if the readers can't (or won't) understand them. As I said I have nothing further to add on that issue. End of.

I agree that you can't or won't understand.
I was only arguing about your claim that the children's interests should be paramount, that if they expressed a wish to stay with their mother they should.
Why is the same not true of stranger kidnapping/ abduction? (I really don't give a rat's arse what you call it)

 

[kerikiwi]

I would expect the police to take out your stranger, not try to drag the kids away

'Take out'? You mean kill? While the children are screaming to stay with him/her?

 

[kerikiwi]

Parental abduction is NOT the same as kidnapping, and I proved it for a fact in several posts ending in #799

I have nothing further to add.

Nobody has said it was. So we agree. Parental abduction is not the same as kidnapping.

Now back to your argument that the children should be left with their mother because tearing them away is barbaric (not because parental abduction is only illegal but not criminal).
Why would tearing them away from the stranger not be barbaric (and this has nothing to do with whether the abduction/kidnapping was illegal or criminal.)
it has solely to do with the assertion that the children should not be torn away from the person they wanted to stay with.

 

[Damien Evans]

LOL. So you found out you were wrong about US Law, since parental kidnapping is a criminal offence there as in many other countries, and switched to Australian law where it's a civil offence. Nice moving of the goalposts there.

None of which is relevant, since the children were taken from Italy and the mother would be prosecuted under Italian law.

Except that's wrong too, here it's an offence with a punishment of up to 3 years jail. No way could you ever get 3 years for a civil matter.

 

[banquetbear]

1. No, but I did paraphrase some parts for clarity. I felt there was no need to site the source since I was quoting the law, and citing relevant statutes and sections (28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A [Supp. 1993]) and (48 Stat. 781 [codified at 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1201 et seq.]).

...you didn't quote the law. You quoted an online dictionary interpretation of the law. And partway in the definition you inserted your commentary and tried to pass it off as part of that definition.

2. I have already answered that question. "Depending on the laws of the state and country in which the child abduction occurs, the abduction may or may not constitute a criminal offense"
https://www.justia.com/family/child-custody/docs/what-is-parental-child-abduction.html

If you are looking for an easy "sound byte" answer, then you are going to be disappointed, because there isn't one. Its too complex an issue for that.

And yet: I'm not the one who posted the sentence "abduction is not a criminal offence." That was you! I'm well aware that its a complex issue: you are the one throwing out one-liners. If you know this issue is so complex: why are you throwing out soundbytes?

3. Perhaps you can show me where I have asked any poster to "support my assertions" All I have done is put my case. Its up to them if they support it or not. SWSW SW!

"If you can show me ONE SINGLE CASE (with proof) in any of the jurisdictions involve in this case the case where the offending parent in a parental abduction case has been charged with a criminal offence and been found guilty and been sentenced to 25 years in prison, then I will recant my position."

You are asking posters to prove something that no-one in this thread has espoused.

NOTE: Discussion on this is now closed from my end.

And I bet you won't be able to resist responding to this post.

I have made my position clear on the issue of whether kidnapping and parental abduction are one and the same offence.

And so what? Who in this thread are you arguing with?

In reality whether parental abduction is a criminal offence in some jurisdictions and not in others is really irrelevant, what matters is how they are treated. There is no case I can find in any jurisdiction in which a parental abductor has been given the same length or severity of sentence that a kidnapper who took a child for ransom or sex would have been given. I would be more than willing to recant if you can find one. Oh, and good luck with that!

You've set up a point for debate, argued with yourself for several posts in this thread, and now you are declaring victory. Well good for you.

Parental abduction is NOT the same as kidnapping, and I proved it for a fact in several posts ending in #799

Obvious point is obvious.

I have nothing further to add.

I very much doubt that.

 

[smartcooky]

'Take out'? You mean kill? While the children are screaming to stay with him/her?

Of course not!

Take him down, drag him away, arrest him, feel 'is collar, clap him in irons, cuff 'im,...... "Book him Danno!"

Just a point by the way, I think you whole scenario is BS.

 

[katy_did]

Except that's wrong too, here it's an offence with a punishment of up to 3 years jail. No way could you ever get 3 years for a civil matter.

I'm probably just wrongly assuming that if something isn't a criminal offence, it must be a civil one.

From what I can gather, in Australia child abduction is an "offence" but not a "criminal offence". Seems like there were proposals to make it a criminal offence a couple of years ago, but they never went ahead.

ETA2: Yeah, now I'm even more confused:

Is it a crime to abduct or kidnap your child overseas?

Under Australian law, it is not a criminal offence to abduct your child overseas. However, if there are existing (or pending) court orders concerning the child and you take the child overseas without the consent of the other parent, you could face serious legal consequences.

International parental child abduction is a crime in some countries.

Even though it is not a crime in Australia, international parental child abduction can have a serious lasting impact on a child’s wellbeing.

Perhaps it's just a criminal offence if there's a court order in place or pending. i.e. it's the breach of the court order which is the offence, not the abduction.

 

[kerikiwi]

Just a point by the way, I think you whole scenario is BS.

Why?

The point seems to just go right over your head. How tall are you?

 

[smartcooky]

I'm probably just wrongly assuming that if something isn't a criminal offence, it must be a civil one.

From what I can gather, in Australia child abduction is an "offence" but not a "criminal offence". Seems like there were proposals to make it a criminal offence a couple of years ago, but they never went ahead.

ETA2: Yeah, now I'm even more confused:

Perhaps it's just a criminal offence if there's a court order in place or pending. i.e. it's the breach of the court order which is the offence, not the abduction.

I been telling you guys, but you haven't been taking no notice

Many people simply do not understand that the word "crime" is not synonymous with "criminal" in the sense that they are talking about types of offences. There are a lot of ambiguous uses of these words, and they often differ in meaning depending on the context being used.

In England and Wales, "offence" is the same as crime, and the two words are interchangeable, but in Scotland they are not. A crime is only an offence that is punishable by imprisonment, or at the discretion of the court, a lesser penalty. If the penalty cannot be prison, then the offence is not a crime, it is merely "an offence".

Then there are other definitions that mean different things in different jurisdictions; felony, misdemeanour, summary offence, indictable offence, infraction. In most jurisdictions, a felony is a stand-alone definition for certain classes of offence, but in the US, "felony" is often used as an attachment or enhancement e.g., "murder" and "felony murder"

Its is all very, complicated, and does not easily wrap up into the nice, convenient tidy bundle that some people here think it does.

 

[tyr_13]

So how should this offense be dealt with? What other offenses are alright to ignore if done by a mother?

 

[smartcooky]

Why?

The point seems to just go right over your head. How tall are you?

Your scenario does not go over my head, I understand perfectly well the false parallel you are trying to construct with your BS scenario.

Cite an instance when a complete stranger has kidnapped children, and then later the police had to drag the children kicking and screaming away from their abductor because they wanted to stay with him/her.

If that is a strawman, it is one of your own building!

Good luck looking for that instance, I won't be holding my breath.

So how should this offense be dealt with? What other offenses are alright to ignore if done by a mother?

For ****'s sake please try to keep up! At the risk of boring you, I am going repeat what I said earlier in case you missed it

I have never argued that she hasn't committed an offence. I have always argued, right from my very first post in this thread, that I believe what happened when the girls were dragged away from their mother was wrong. IMO, it was handled appallingly by all concerned, including the police. That is an opinion I will never change. There is never any justification for the use of violence with children. Don't much care who is to blame for the situation that this family has ended up in. The mother may well be a *********** pig, or a *********** dog or a *********** bitch or any of the other disgusting terms that some posters here have used to describe her. Perhaps she really doesn't deserve to have them. The father may well be all sweetness and light and a real angel in disguise, who only wants what's best for his kids, and perhaps he is the best choice as the custodial parent. Irrespective of ANY of all this, the use of violence with children is always wrong!!

Now if you persist in asking the same questions over and over, I will persist in posting the same answers over and over, and we'll see who gives up first.

 

[kerikiwi]

Your scenario does not go over my head, I understand perfectly well the false parallel you are trying to construct with your BS scenario.

Cite an instance when a complete stranger has kidnapped children, and then later the police had to drag the children kicking and screaming away from their abductor because they wanted to stay with him/her.

If that is a strawman, it is one of your own building!

Good luck looking for that instance, I won't be holding my breath.



For ****'s sake please try to keep up! At the risk of boring you, I am going repeat what I said earlier in case you missed it

I have never argued that she hasn't committed an offence. I have always argued, right from my very first post in this thread, that I believe what happened when the girls were dragged away from their mother was wrong. IMO, it was handled appallingly by all concerned, including the police. That is an opinion I will never change. There is never any justification for the use of violence with children. Don't much care who is to blame for the situation that this family has ended up in. The mother may well be a *********** pig, or a *********** dog or a *********** bitch or any of the other disgusting terms that some posters here have used to describe her. Perhaps she really doesn't deserve to have them. The father may well be all sweetness and light and a real angel in disguise, who only wants what's best for his kids, and perhaps he is the best choice as the custodial parent. Irrespective of ANY of all this, the use of violence with children is always wrong!!

Now if you persist in asking the same questions over and over, I will persist in posting the same answers over and over, and we'll see who gives up first.

Whether or not such a thing has actually happened is irrelevant.
You said that the children's interests should come first, that is if they really want to stay where they are it is bad to tear them away.
But it seems you don't actually mean that.
What you mean is, depending on who has abducted/kidnapped the children, it is bad to tear them away.
Then you again repeat that the use of violence is always wrong (again, the violence was from the children) but you don't mean that : you mean itis wrong depending on who it is the children are fighting to stay with.

 

[smartcooky]

Whether or not such a thing has actually happened is irrelevant.
You said that the children's interests should come first, that is if they really want to stay where they are it is bad to tear them away.
But it seems you don't actually mean that.
What you mean is, depending on who has abducted/kidnapped the children, it is bad to tear them away.

Cite your source

Then you again repeat that the use of violence is always wrong (again, the violence was from the children)

Violence was from the Police, resistance was from the children

you mean itis wrong depending on who it is the children are fighting to stay with.

Cite your source

If you really believe that I was always biased in favour of the mother, read post #787, and then many of the posts in the thread about the girl who got 30 days for telling the judge to **** off, where it was implied (in a veiled way) that I was a woman-hating misogynist bastard.

For all other issues or questions, refer post #799

 

[Wildy]

www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=36773

Google translating the first paragraph:

<snip>

In Italy, parental abduction is a criminal offense.

That was far more difficult than it should have been.

The second paragraph is specifically about the crime in question, again using Google translate:

Article 574 bis.
Abduction and detention of minor abroad. (1)

Unless the act constitutes a more serious crime, anyone who removes a child to the parent as the legal parent or guardian, leading or holding it abroad against the will of that parent or guardian, preventing all or part of the same exercise parental authority, shall be punished with imprisonment from one to four years.
If the offense referred to in the first paragraph is committed against a minor who has attained the age of fourteen and with his consent, the penalty of imprisonment from six months to three years.
If the facts in the first and second paragraphs are committed by a parent to the detriment of the minor child, the sentence involves the suspension of the exercise of parental responsibility.

Since it's part of the Penal Code I'd say that in Italy, where the crime happened, we saw a criminal offence occur.

 

[Shiner]

Thanks for this, and the other, links. Accurate information is essential.

Yeah well, like Lionking said, accuracy isn't one of Miranda Devine's strong points.
And 'The Daily Telegraph' isn't quite as bad as 'The Daily Mail', but it's not the best source either.

I have no reason to doubt the validity of that story though.